Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Thought you were not talking to me? Glad to see you changed your mind.

Technically, I wasn't talking to you. I was just clearing that up for Annette.

Audie wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, I didnt know anyone dated Adam to that long ago.

The main reason that Young Earth Creationists go with the 6000 years ago date for Adam, is that they take the biblical chronology as having no gaps, or little gaps. But as far as creationists go, that's usually just YECs. Old earth creationists and Theistic evolutionists(both technically creationists) don't assume there are no gaps in the geneaology. The bible doesn't set a date on Adam. It's just human interpretation of chronology that sets dates.

What would you mean by first "real" human?

Sorry. Modern human. Homo sapiens sapiens. If Adam wasn't the first modern human(with a spirit), then it becomes a problem biblically, because of the whole "sin, and need for a redeemer" deal. Although some Theistic Evolutionists don't believe Adam was the first modern, spiritual human. But I've yet to hear a good argument as to how those TEs deal with the problem of original sin, and the need for a redeemer. Which if can't be addressed properly, makes the whole message of the bible worthless. (And to clarify, I'm not saying those TEs don't deal with the issue. I'm just saying that I personally, haven't sen a satisfactory answer).

I can go along with "dust" as long as a lot of water is added. And maybe a couple other provisos.

Yes, It's like "instant human". Just take the dust of the earth, and add water.

Humans bodies aren't made up of any elements that are any different than other animals. I know you know that. I'm just saying it to explain that what humans are made of physically, isn't what make us different from the animals, especially other bipedal animals.

Despite being unconvinced, btw, with phil. arguments to prove that there has to be a god, I could go along with it.. assuming I got convinced... and be a creationist myself.

It's not really a big step Audie. Technically, all you'd have to do to be a creationist, is believe God or a god created the building blocks for life, then life evolved from there.

Audie wrote:
Ive seen it proposed that Adam was the first human given a soul. There were, after all, humans, H sapiens, deeply predating any date for Adam.

I guess Im half way to being a creo. What a thing to discover! Im blaming you for this.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Ive seen it proposed that Adam was the first human given a soul. There were, after all, humans, H sapiens, deeply predating any date for Adam.

I guess Im half way to being a creo. What a thing to discover! Im blaming you for this.

Yes Audie. I believe homo sapiens are known to predate homo sapiens sapiens. Some "creationists" believe homo sapiens sapiens evolved from homo sapiens. While others believe each was created differently. There's a HUGE range of beliefs just within Theistic Evolution.

And Audie, I'd be careful who you tell that you're halfway to being a creationist. Some of your evolutionist friends might think you're an idiot.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Ive seen it proposed that Adam was the first human given a soul. There were, after all, humans, H sapiens, deeply predating any date for Adam.

I guess Im half way to being a creo. What a thing to discover! Im blaming you for this.

Yes Audie. I believe homo sapiens are known to predate homo sapiens sapiens. Some "creationists" believe homo sapiens sapiens evolved from homo sapiens. While others believe each was created differently. There's a HUGE range of beliefs just within Theistic Evolution.

And Audie, I'd be careful who you tell that you're halfway to being a creationist. Some of your evolutionist friends might think you're an idiot.

If I said it that way, yes. I know nobody who'd say its impossible that there is a god.

BTW, you accused me of dishonesty, and I challenged you to back it, or take it back.
I dont seek conflict, but I cannot pretend you didnt accuse me so. Please deal with it.

W/o getting into microquibble, the micro / macro thing in a creationist canard.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Ive seen it proposed that Adam was the first human given a soul. There were, after all, humans, H sapiens, deeply predating any date for Adam.

I guess Im half way to being a creo. What a thing to discover! Im blaming you for this.

Yes Audie. I believe homo sapiens are known to predate homo sapiens sapiens. Some "creationists" believe homo sapiens sapiens evolved from homo sapiens. While others believe each was created differently. There's a HUGE range of beliefs just within Theistic Evolution.

And Audie, I'd be careful who you tell that you're halfway to being a creationist. Some of your evolutionist friends might think you're an idiot.

If I said it that way, yes. I know nobody who'd say its impossible that there is a god.

BTW, you accused me of dishonesty, and I challenged you to back it, or take it back.
I dont seek conflict, but I cannot pretend you didnt accuse me so. Please deal with it.

Yes Audie, you were being dishonest when you said:

W/o getting into microquibble, the micro / macro thing in a creationist canard.

I showed you that noncreationists use the terms micro and macro evolution. AND, the person who the terms originated with, was an evolutionist.

So for you to say that it's a creationist canard(An unfounded rumour or story), is dishonest, IMO.

Audie wrote:
If an "evolutionist" coined the terms, fine. It hardly matters. Who thought of the words was not at all what I was talking about, nor is it dishonest of me to have thought it was a creationist. I was talking about the use of the words.

Did you read my reply?

That people may use the same terms does not remotely imply that they mean the same thing by it.

The micro / macro "thing" that I refer to as a creocanard is the assertion there is micro, variation within an (undefined) "kind", but that macro is impossible.

As a rule, it is the fair minded thing to inquire as to what someone means, or, read more carefully before making accusations, dont you think?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
If an "evolutionist" coined the terms, fine. It hardly matters. Who thought of the words was not at all what I was talking about, nor is it dishonest of me to have thought it was a creationist. I was talking about the use of the words.

Did you read my reply?

That people may use the same terms does not remotely imply that they mean the same thing by it.

The micro / macro "thing" that I refer to as a creocanard is the assertion there is micro, variation within an (undefined) "kind", but that macro is impossible.

As a rule, it is the fair minded thing to inquire as to what someone means, or, read more carefully before making accusations, dont you think?

Of Course. But it looks like you've been saying that only creationists differentiate between micro and macro. That's just not true. Sure, the terms are defined differently depending on who is defining.

And if anyone said "macro is impossible", I think they're wrong. But I don't think most honest creationists are saying that. I think most creationists are just saying that macro is not knowable. And afaik, evolutionists assume macro from micro, because that's how evolution should work, if theres no other explanation.

The creationist differentiation between micro and macro is the canard.

If you are satisfied that you misunderstood me rather than thinking I was being dishonest, fine.

Ive seen the "micro yes / macro no way" argument from creationists so often, that I thought it pretty universal.. and, if one accepts that macro does happen, then, what are they arguing about at all?

Regarding the assumption of macro, good that you said its as far as you are (k)oncerned. Its so far from an assumption.

I dont know what you meant with the second half, the "because..." but I sure dont think the word "should" fits into ToE anywhere.

because that's how evolution should work, if theres no other explanation.

RickD wrote:

The creationist differentiation between micro and macro is the canard.

I'm assuming you mean the way they differentiate, not the differentiation itself, correct? Because again, evolutionists differentiate as well.

Yes.

If you are satisfied that you misunderstood me rather than thinking I was being dishonest, fine.

While it's possible that I misunderstood you, I still think you weren't being honest. But if you were, then I apologize.

If you dont think Im being dishonest now, then, I wasnt then either.

Ive seen the "micro yes / macro no way" argument from creationists so often, that I thought it pretty universal.. and, if one accepts that macro does happen, then, what are they arguing about at all?

The "now way" may come from the interpretation of the facts. Like the fossil record. The lack of transitional intermediates in the fossil record. I believe the lack of transitional intermediates points to Progressive Creation, not evolution.

The thing about a lack of intermediaries is also, sorry, as bit of a creationist canard.

Look at it this way. We don not have a complete record of WW2. Far less complete record of the Roman Empire. There are gaps, and mysteries in abundance.

There are many organisms known from a single incomplete specimen, sometimes a single bone fragment.

Of course there are gaps in the fossil record. A single dinosaur bone can cost thousands of dollars from discovery to museum. Its not like there is a lot of money or a lot of people working on fossils. One paleo put it that its a grand sport for rich gentlemen.

Overlooking the sequences and intermediate forms that are known, and concentrating on where the record is missing is not reasonable or, (ahem) honest.

Regarding the assumption of macro, good that you said its as far as you are (k)oncerned. Its so far from an assumption.

afaik-as far as I know. Ok, how about assumption based on interpretation of genetics and the fossil record, etc.

The use of the word "assumption" is inappropriate. Kinda like you have the bloody knife, the corpse, the footprints, etc, and say its an assumption that murder took place.

Evolutionists see genetics pointing to a common ancestor. Many creationists see genetics pointing to a common designer, who used the same or similar chemicals to design different life forms.

That is fine. The designer, tho, is a conclusion before data, and non negotiable.

Its not just genetics anyway. There are many lines of evidence, as you know.

Are you of the school of thought that a designer kept doing unique creations over the aeons? And doing what has the appearance of a sequence, from fish with the basic bone structure of limbs, thro amphibians, reptiles...?

I dont know what you meant with the second half, the "because..." but I sure dont think the word "should" fits into ToE anywhere.

I was referring to :

because that's how evolution should work, if theres no other explanation.

because of the lack of intermediates in the fossil record for example. Evolutionists assume evolution even though the fossil record shows otherwise

,

A proper study on your part would show otherwise. There are a great many fine examples of intermediate forms. To say the fosssil record does not show evolution is rather an extraordinary statement, not consistent with the record as it exists.

Maybe I'm wrong and some evolutionists really do think the lack of transitional intermediates still shows evolution.

I will go with the second and third words of that sentence.

1over137 wrote:I think I have resigned to fix Audie's quotes anymore. The above post, the post here

DanielTwenty wrote: "Based on the available evidence, yes life evolves. That's what all the historical evidence says. If you can provide an alternative explanation of the evidence that can make predictions we can test for and has a better explanatory power than evolution then I am all ears. Until that time ACB I dismiss your assertions, because that's all they are, nothing you have said is based on any fact."